Mueller Report Imminent

[RockyTop85]

If that's the case, why hasn't Congress opened an investigation into it and done what is required of every law enforcement agency in the nation to get tax returns?

Because they proposed and passed a law saying they are above the Constitution. (Coolidge must have signed it into law)

Not trying to bust your balls but it seemed strange to me that a warrant would be required for the government to view a document that the government orders you to produce for the government to review.

The 4th amendment is based on privacy and this doesn’t seem like a matter of privacy.

So I looked it up. The USCA is complicated and it’s possible there’s constitutional authority that supersedes this but:

16 USC 6103(d) says that tax returns and tax return information are available to state and federal law enforcement agencies upon written request.

 

[Stew Cook]

Ask yourself how you'd react if it was a candidate you supported? Stop thinking about it as related to Trump.

I have, and for instance if it were Biden or Kasich or the like.. sunshine is the best disinfectant.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

I'll not lie, I want The House to use every legal avenue to prove, or ultimately disprove my suspicions.

So you would approve of the house using all of their resources to attempt to "prove" your theory vs. work towards making our country better? Until Trump attempts to enact policies with intentional favor of Russian interests there is no reason to investigate towards your theory. Any effort as of right now is throwing taxpayer money down the drain which is not useful for anyone in America.

 

[newarkvol]

The underlined is false. The Trump campaign sought nothing from the Russians. In fact the Muell explicitly said the campaign rebuffed the Russian advances. Womp womp.

See: (VOLUME I, PP. 52-54)-heavily redacted
After receiving a call during a drive to La Guardia Airport, Mr. Trump “told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.” The details are redacted, and the redactions are marked “harm to ongoing matter,” perhaps related to the prosecution of Roger Stone.
(VOLUME I, PP. 49, 62-63)
...working behind the scenes with Russian actors to obtain hacked information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, then this section of the report describes just that — collusion that took place at Mr. Trump’s request. It just wasn’t successful.
(VOLUME I, PP. 130-131, 140)
Mr. Manafort told Mr. Gates to share “internal polling data” private to the campaign with Mr. Kilimnik, so he could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs and a Russian oligarch. Mr. Gates sent Mr. Kilimnik the data regularly, deleting the WhatsApp messages after he did so. In an in-person meeting with Mr. Kilimnik, Mr. Manafort shared more information about the campaign’s election plans and polling, including information about “battleground states” that would be key to Mr. Trump’s election.

 

[Stew Cook]

So you would approve of the house using all of their resources to attempt to "prove" your theory vs. work towards making our country better? Until Trump attempts to enact policies with intentional favor of Russian interests there is no reason to investigate towards your theory. Any effort as of right now is throwing taxpayer money down the drain which is not useful for anyone in America.

I don't need to speculate on that, as it is also a prevailing theory in the halls of Congress. But if my suspicions existed in a vacuum, I wouldn't expect anything other than to occasionally ramble about it while drinking.

 

[Grand Vol]

Neither country has "battle ships" any more, warships, yep. The Russian one was a destroyer. Just for clarification.

Yeah, but we should.

"16 inches of explosive freedom coming at you" just has a nice ring to it.

 

[37L1]

Yeah, but we should.

"16 inches of explosive freedom coming at you" just has a nice ring to it.

{img]

 

[Grand Vol]

Not trying to bust your balls but it seemed strange to me that a warrant would be required for the government to view a document that the government orders you to produce for the government to review.

The 4th amendment is based on privacy and this doesn’t seem like a matter of privacy.

So I looked it up. The USCA is complicated and it’s possible there’s constitutional authority that supersedes this but:

16 USC 6103(d) says that tax returns and tax return information are available to state and federal law enforcement agencies upon written request.

Oh, you don't mind busting my balls lol

Point being is the IRS considers that confidential information. I was pretty certain I saw they could request it, but only Congress gets the "shall give" verbiage.

Now, how does this not conflict with the 4th Amendment?

 

[Grand Vol]

{img]

Even the lady sailors would probably approve.

"If you aren't packing 16 inches, I ain't interested."

Sailor girls are just as dirty minded as sailor boys.

 

[newarkvol]

Even the lady sailors would probably approve.

"If you aren't packing 16 inches, I ain't interested."

Sailor girls are just as dirty minded as sailor boys.

Get a room you two.... jeez...

 

[nuclearjunky]

Sounds good. Has hot Rod disputed anything in the AG’s report?

Not that I’m aware of.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No, just born rich.

Yeah, he didn't get his money like all the rest of the politicians in DC

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

SIAP but a great read.

Robert Mueller's Investigation Was Always Impeachment Probe | National Review

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

I don't need to speculate on that, as it is also a prevailing theory in the halls of Congress.

And this right here is a large part of the political problem in America. Politicians are more interested in getting a gotcha (whether there's proof or not) on the other side than work on the betterment of our country. It's amazing how much effort, time and money we waste on fruitless gotcha conquests while we sit here and wonder why other major issues are not fixed.

 

[RockyTop85]

Oh, you don't mind busting my balls lol

Point being is the IRS considers that confidential information. I was pretty certain I saw they could request it, but only Congress gets the "shall give" verbiage.

Now, how does this not conflict with the 4th Amendment?

2 textual reasons and one interpretation argument:
1. The 4th amendment applies to your person, house(s), papers, and effects. Your tax return already belongs to the government so it’s wholly outside the scope of the Amendment.

2. You could argue that the process of filing is a search, but the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that everyone pays their taxes, so the search is still reasonable.

A. The fourth amendment is based on privacy. You don’t have an expectation that the things that you do in public will remain private. Once you’ve shared your tax information with the government, you no longer have an expectation that it will remain private, except to the extent the government makes assurances that it will remain private. Those assurances and their exceptions are spelled out.

The litigation over obtaining your mobile data from your carrier would be a reasonably good analogue. I don’t remember how that turned out.

 

[NorthDallas40]

See: (VOLUME I, PP. 52-54)-heavily redacted
After receiving a call during a drive to La Guardia Airport, Mr. Trump “told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.” The details are redacted, and the redactions are marked “harm to ongoing matter,” perhaps related to the prosecution of Roger Stone.
(VOLUME I, PP. 49, 62-63)
...working behind the scenes with Russian actors to obtain hacked information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, then this section of the report describes just that — collusion that took place at Mr. Trump’s request. It just wasn’t successful.
(VOLUME I, PP. 130-131, 140)
Mr. Manafort told Mr. Gates to share “internal polling data” private to the campaign with Mr. Kilimnik, so he could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs and a Russian oligarch. Mr. Gates sent Mr. Kilimnik the data regularly, deleting the WhatsApp messages after he did so. In an in-person meeting with Mr. Kilimnik, Mr. Manafort shared more information about the campaign’s election plans and polling, including information about “battleground states” that would be key to Mr. Trump’s election.

Nope. When did Manafort and Gates do this and what was their association with the campaign? Long after Manafort’s drive by campaign work. They peddled influence they didn’t have. And the behind the scene coordination, that’s the “Russia if you’re listening” narrative again. And it’s false, Russia was approaching the campaign and they rebuffed them. Again Mueller stated it even. Keep trying to sell it though.

Here’s a little tidbit on the SC charging decision with regard to conspiracy. Notice no reference is made to the OLC opinion. Again keep selling it

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. AndourevidenceabouttheJune9,2016meetingandWikiLeaks'sreleasesofhacked materialswasnotsufficienttochargeacriminalcampaign-financeviolation. Further,theevidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives ofthe Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

This is hysterical and shows the Democrats grasping at anything.

 

[Velo Vol]

1. The 4th amendment applies to your person, house(s), papers, and effects. Your tax return already belongs to the government so it’s wholly outside the scope of the Amendment.

Seems to be that could be an end run for law enforcement to get around the Right to Financial Privacy Act (to extent the tax return has the sought financial information).

 

[RockyTop85]

Seems to be that could be an end run for law enforcement to get around the Right to Financial Privacy Act (to extent the tax return has the sought financial information).

Not really, IMO, for the same reason: you’ve already shared the information in your tax return with the government knowing that the government reserves the right to give it to law enforcement upon request.

I would add a caveat that it would not be unheard of for there to be an arguably contradictory statute somewhere in the USC and as I’m familiar with about .0001% of federal statutes, it’s almost certain I wouldn’t know about it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not really, IMO, for the same reason: you’ve already shared the information in your tax return with the government knowing that the government reserves the right to give it to law enforcement upon request.

I would add a caveat that it would not be unheard of for there to be an arguably contradictory statute somewhere in the USC and as I’m familiar with about .0001% of federal statutes, it’s almost certain I wouldn’t know about it.

So, the government decided that the government can force you to produce information to the government for reason (a), and if the government finds it convenient to give that forced information to the government for reasons (b, c, d), it has the right to do so.

That sounds a lot like "it's legal because we said it's legal" as opposed to "it's legal because it doesn't infringe your rights, as protected in the constitution". This isn't like Google, where we can read their data use policy and tell them to get bent. This is the government strong arming information for one use and telling you they'll search and seize for any damn reason they so choose.

This is data for the use of taxation. Sharing and using that data for the use of criminal investigation seems an unreasonable search and seizure of the data.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[AM64]

Other than the 1924 law or whenever that gives The Ways and Means Chairman access to executive branch tax returns, I'm not sure what else, other than an impeachment inquiry.

As far as the president's bank records, there doesn't seem to be any legal debate about whether Trump can ultimately prevent it. But his team is suing to block them, with lower courts rejecting their objections. Seems to be fast tracking to SCOTUS.

Sorry, just not seeing it. Maybe some of your resident legal beagles can reinterpret it to read another way.

(5)Reporting requirements
Within 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter, the President and the head of any agency requesting returns and return information under this subsection shall each file a report with the Joint Committee on Taxation setting forth the taxpayers with respect to whom such requests were made during such quarter under this subsection, the returns or return information involved, and the reasons for such requests. The President shall not be required to report on any request for returns and return information pertaining to an individual who was an officer or employee of the executive branch of the Federal Government at the time such request was made. Reports filed pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disclosed unless the Joint Committee on Taxation determines that disclosurethereof (including identifying details) would be in the national interest. Such reports shall be maintained by the Joint Committee on Taxation for a period not exceeding 2 years unless, within such period, the Joint Committee on Taxation determines that a disclosure

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

 

[AM64]

Yeah, but we should.

"16 inches of explosive freedom coming at you" just has a nice ring to it.

Yeah, but WW2 proved airplanes > battleships (on both sides), and now we have even more dangerous things like anti-ship missiles ... sorta like really determined kamikazes without the pilot.

 

[VolStrom]

Yeah, but WW2 proved airplanes > battleships (on both sides), and now we have even more dangerous things like anti-ship missiles ... sorta like really determined kamikazes without the pilot.

I think our money buys us a little more technology than you give us credit for. I doubt that some Iranian crap boat can launch a Russian made torpedo and get within a half a mile of a carrier before it and the launchee gets blown to pieces.

 

[AM64]

I think our money buys us a little more technology than you give us credit for. I doubt that some Iranian crap boat can launch a Russian made torpedo and get within a half a mile of a carrier before it and the launchee gets blown to pieces.

I agree. A lot of things depend on the enemy. For example, I can't wait to see how drone warfare works against a real enemy. And it's gonna be interesting to see how our stealth technology works out in the daytime when congress or somebody else requires visual identification before firing a stand off missile. We build some neat stuff and then negate it with ROEs.